Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to comply with our previous decision and specifically the actions agreed to remedy the complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to reassess his daughter’s needs it would be reasonable for him to appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to carry out the Ombudsman’s recommendations to remedy his previous complaint. He wants the Council to carry out a reassessment of his daughter’s education placement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to us previously about the content of his daughter’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and its failure to respond to his request for mediation and to deal with his complaint in a timely manner. We found fault by the Council and recommend actions to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and his daughter. This included apologising to Mr X, making a payment for his avoidable distress and uncertainty and considering whether to carry out an EHC needs re-assessment.
8. The Council provided evidence to show it had complied with the recommendations and we wrote to confirm we were satisfied with its actions on 2 April 2024.
9. Mr X says the Council has failed to carry out the recommendations but I have seen no evidence to show this is the case. Our final decision did not require the Council to carry out a reassessment of his daughter’s education placement; it said the Council should “consider whether to carry out” a reassessment and “write to Mr X with its decision and provide his right of appeal to the SEND tribunal”. The evidence provided by the Council to confirm its compliance, which is the same letter Mr X has sent with his complaint, shows it has completed this action.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to reassess his daughter’s needs it would be reasonable for him to appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman